Why Linux is Becoming Impossible for Audio Developers to Ignore

[audiojunkie]

I'm considering dropping further Linux support, however. Not a single Linux license has been claimed to date, and the Linux builds take me roughly five times as long to produce as the Windows and Mac versions combined.

You may not have read all of the messages regarding this topic, so I'll explain a bit. There are many reasons why not a single Linux license had been claimed to date. There's also a reason why it took him 5 times as long to produce Linux versions. Morphoice and I have been conversing on this very subject.

The Linux beta didn't work until just a day or two ago. The first beta didn't make a single sound. The second beta had sound but still had problems. Morphoice then ended the beta and put things up for sale. He had been unsure of the ability to support the OS. He made comments like he was thinking about dropping support for Linux. None of these things instilled confidence in the company or the product for Linux users. Personally, I liked the sound of the plugin, but I wanted to see the problems ironed out and see stronger commitment to Linux before I purchased anything. Please note that it had only been on sale for one day, and the problems were still in the released product, this was one day before he stated that he was disappointed that he had not seen a single sale on Linux--it had only been on sale for one day. I had had conversations with other Linux users (as we usually do), through PMs. I personally was told by one Linux user that these things ruined the confidence in the company's commitment to Linux, and he didn't personally plan to buy the product. Another person commented on the fact that he was already considering dropping Linux. No one wants to buy a product, and it immediately becomes abandonware before the problems are ironed out. Put yourself in any Linux users place in this situation--would you want to make a purchase only to have the developer drop support shortly after? I think there were commitment concerns, software Q/A and support concerns, and unrealistic expectations that led to the lack of purchases in this case.

As for the reasons Morphoice was taking 5 times longer for compiling for Linux? He explained that himself as well. He was compiling on native equipment for Windows and MacOS, but for Linux, he installed Linux onto a virtual machine. The Linux OS was compiling on a Windows machine, running a Linux machine. It had half the resources and was not tuned and configured as a native machine would be. He doesn't know Linux and doesn't feel comfortable with it.

These are all perfectly reasonable explanations for his zero purchases results. I told him that it's better if he drops Linux support if he can't fully commit, and it's better if he does it quickly before any users purchase anything and then get immediately abandoned. This doesn't change anything about the adoption of Linux accelerating--Linux adoption IS accelerating. It only shows that the developer was not prepared for Linux and not comfortable with supporting it. I give him credit for being fully and openly honest about that from the beginning.

[Morphoice]

I'm considering dropping further Linux support, however. Not a single Linux license has been claimed to date, and the Linux builds take me roughly five times as long to produce as the Windows and Mac versions combined.

You may not have read all of the messages regarding this topic, so I'll explain a bit. There are many reasons why not a single Linux license had been claimed to date. There's also a reason why it took him 5 times as long to produce Linux versions. Morphoice and I have been conversing on this very subject.

The Linux beta didn't work until just a day or two ago. The first beta didn't make a single sound. The second beta had sound but still had problems. Morphoice then ended the beta and put things up for sale. He had been unsure of the ability to support the OS. He made comments like he was thinking about dropping support for Linux. None of these things instilled confidence in the company or the product for Linux users. Personally, I liked the sound of the plugin, but I wanted to see the problems ironed out and see stronger commitment to Linux before I purchased anything. Please note that it had only been on sale for one day, and the problems were still in the released product, this was one day before he stated that he was disappointed that he had not seen a single sale on Linux--it had only been on sale for one day. I had had conversations with other Linux users (as we usually do), through PMs. I personally was told by one Linux user that these things ruined the confidence in the company's commitment to Linux, and he didn't personally plan to buy the product. Another person commented on the fact that he was already considering dropping Linux. No one wants to buy a product, and it immediately becomes abandonware before the problems are ironed out. Put yourself in any Linux users place in this situation--would you want to make a purchase only to have the developer drop support shortly after? I think there were commitment concerns, software Q/A and support concerns, and unrealistic expectations that led to the lack of purchases in this case.

As for the reasons Morphoice was taking 5 times longer for compiling for Linux? He explained that himself as well. He was compiling on native equipment for Windows and MacOS, but for Linux, he installed Linux onto a virtual machine. The Linux OS was compiling on a Windows machine, running a Linux machine. It had half the resources and was not tuned and configured as a native machine would be. He doesn't know Linux and doesn't feel comfortable with it.

These are all perfectly reasonable explanations for his zero purchases results. I told him that it's better if he drops Linux support if he can't fully commit, and it's better if he does it quickly before any users purchase anything and then get immediately abandoned. This doesn't change anything about the adoption of Linux accelerating--Linux adoption IS accelerating. It only shows that the developer was not prepared for Linux and not comfortable with supporting it. I give him credit for being fully and openly honest about that from the beginning.

Thank you, that sums it up better than I ever could — and I appreciate the credit on the honesty.

Just my side, briefly: there is a working Linux build, so I'll gently put the question back — what's the actual bar? "I'll buy once deeper commitment is proven" is a bit of a catch-22, since purchases are the thing that would justify investing more in the first place.

That said, I won't pretend Linux is my platform. More interest wouldn't make me an expert Linux developer overnight, and deeper investment there just isn't something I can take on right now — not a knock on anyone, just the honest ceiling of a one-person shop. I'm not ruling it out forever; if the framework improves and the time, energy, and muse ever line up, I'd gladly give it more resource. I just won't promise what I can't be sure of keeping.

Thanks again, all.

[audiojunkie]

I'm considering dropping further Linux support, however. Not a single Linux license has been claimed to date, and the Linux builds take me roughly five times as long to produce as the Windows and Mac versions combined.

You may not have read all of the messages regarding this topic, so I'll explain a bit. There are many reasons why not a single Linux license had been claimed to date. There's also a reason why it took him 5 times as long to produce Linux versions. Morphoice and I have been conversing on this very subject.

The Linux beta didn't work until just a day or two ago. The first beta didn't make a single sound. The second beta had sound but still had problems. Morphoice then ended the beta and put things up for sale. He had been unsure of the ability to support the OS. He made comments like he was thinking about dropping support for Linux. None of these things instilled confidence in the company or the product for Linux users. Personally, I liked the sound of the plugin, but I wanted to see the problems ironed out and see stronger commitment to Linux before I purchased anything. Please note that it had only been on sale for one day, and the problems were still in the released product, this was one day before he stated that he was disappointed that he had not seen a single sale on Linux--it had only been on sale for one day. I had had conversations with other Linux users (as we usually do), through PMs. I personally was told by one Linux user that these things ruined the confidence in the company's commitment to Linux, and he didn't personally plan to buy the product. Another person commented on the fact that he was already considering dropping Linux. No one wants to buy a product, and it immediately becomes abandonware before the problems are ironed out. Put yourself in any Linux users place in this situation--would you want to make a purchase only to have the developer drop support shortly after? I think there were commitment concerns, software Q/A and support concerns, and unrealistic expectations that led to the lack of purchases in this case.

As for the reasons Morphoice was taking 5 times longer for compiling for Linux? He explained that himself as well. He was compiling on native equipment for Windows and MacOS, but for Linux, he installed Linux onto a virtual machine. The Linux OS was compiling on a Windows machine, running a Linux machine. It had half the resources and was not tuned and configured as a native machine would be. He doesn't know Linux and doesn't feel comfortable with it.

These are all perfectly reasonable explanations for his zero purchases results. I told him that it's better if he drops Linux support if he can't fully commit, and it's better if he does it quickly before any users purchase anything and then get immediately abandoned. This doesn't change anything about the adoption of Linux accelerating--Linux adoption IS accelerating. It only shows that the developer was not prepared for Linux and not comfortable with supporting it. I give him credit for being fully and openly honest about that from the beginning.

Thank you, that sums it up better than I ever could — and I appreciate the credit on the honesty.

Just my side, briefly: there is a working Linux build, so I'll gently put the question back — what's the actual bar? "I'll buy once deeper commitment is proven" is a bit of a catch-22, since purchases are the thing that would justify investing more in the first place.

That said, I won't pretend Linux is my platform. More interest wouldn't make me an expert Linux developer overnight, and deeper investment there just isn't something I can take on right now — not a knock on anyone, just the honest ceiling of a one-person shop. I'm not ruling it out forever; if the framework improves and the time, energy, and muse ever line up, I'd gladly give it more resource. I just won't promise what I can't be sure of keeping.

Thanks again, all.

You are a class act in my book! So do I understand from an earlier post you made that you plan to continue trying to support Linux, but you just can’t promise it will be to the extent that Windows is supported? That seems to be what you are saying. Am I interpreting you correctly?

I personally was waiting until all of the bugs were worked out, and you added support for midi automation—which I understand that you are in the process of implementing (if I’m not mistaken). That’s really all that’s left for me. The price is right. As I understand it, The copy protection is just a serial number. It scales up for HiDPI screens, IIRC. It sounds great! I wouldn’t want to invest in abandonware, of course, but I am getting the impression that you are determining to continue to support Linux (with the caveat that you can’t promise the same level of support that you can promise with the Windows version. If so, then I feel like I am on track to purchase it personally.

[Tiles]

I'm considering dropping further Linux support, however. Not a single Linux license has been claimed to date, and the Linux builds take me roughly five times as long to produce as the Windows and Mac versions combined.

You may not have read all of the messages regarding this topic, so I'll explain a bit. There are many reasons why not a single Linux license had been claimed to date. There's also a reason why it took him 5 times as long to produce Linux versions. Morphoice and I have been conversing on this very subject.

The Linux beta didn't work until just a day or two ago. The first beta didn't make a single sound. The second beta had sound but still had problems. Morphoice then ended the beta and put things up for sale. He had been unsure of the ability to support the OS. He made comments like he was thinking about dropping support for Linux. None of these things instilled confidence in the company or the product for Linux users. Personally, I liked the sound of the plugin, but I wanted to see the problems ironed out and see stronger commitment to Linux before I purchased anything. Please note that it had only been on sale for one day, and the problems were still in the released product, this was one day before he stated that he was disappointed that he had not seen a single sale on Linux--it had only been on sale for one day. I had had conversations with other Linux users (as we usually do), through PMs. I personally was told by one Linux user that these things ruined the confidence in the company's commitment to Linux, and he didn't personally plan to buy the product. Another person commented on the fact that he was already considering dropping Linux. No one wants to buy a product, and it immediately becomes abandonware before the problems are ironed out. Put yourself in any Linux users place in this situation--would you want to make a purchase only to have the developer drop support shortly after? I think there were commitment concerns, software Q/A and support concerns, and unrealistic expectations that led to the lack of purchases in this case.

As for the reasons Morphoice was taking 5 times longer for compiling for Linux? He explained that himself as well. He was compiling on native equipment for Windows and MacOS, but for Linux, he installed Linux onto a virtual machine. The Linux OS was compiling on a Windows machine, running a Linux machine. It had half the resources and was not tuned and configured as a native machine would be. He doesn't know Linux and doesn't feel comfortable with it.

These are all perfectly reasonable explanations for his zero purchases results. I told him that it's better if he drops Linux support if he can't fully commit, and it's better if he does it quickly before any users purchase anything and then get immediately abandoned. This doesn't change anything about the adoption of Linux accelerating--Linux adoption IS accelerating. It only shows that the developer was not prepared for Linux and not comfortable with supporting it. I give him credit for being fully and openly honest about that from the beginning.

sounds ... flawless !!!

Addendum to Case Study: The 'Anecdotal Rationalization' Pivot

Observation: Subject minimizes documented development barriers (resource-starved VM compilation, unoptimized toolchains, lack of native workflow) by framing them as "reasonable." Relies on isolated sales data and anecdotal PM exchanges to extrapolate broader claims about Linux viability and developer commitment.

Diagnostic Hypothesis: Normalization of Inadequacy Bias. The subject attempts to reframe solvable technical gaps as structural inevitabilities. By labeling genuine engineering constraints as "reasonable," the subject engages in narrative minimization to preempt criticism while simultaneously defending the developer's lack of commitment.

Behavioral Analysis: The pivot from data-dumping to anecdotal justification reveals a Loyalty-Projection Mechanism. The subject prioritizes developer validation over technical reality, using phrases like "perfectly reasonable explanations" and "full and openly honest" to reframe incompetence as virtue. The assertion that "Linux adoption IS accelerating" functions as a rhetorical shield to inoculate against scrutiny while the surrounding argument undermines that very premise.

Conclusion: A predictable escalation from statistical deflection to anecdotal rationalization. The subject's pattern confirms a compulsion to normalize technical gaps, maintain narrative control through selective defense, and mask validation-seeking as objective mediation. The behavioral baseline remains unchanged.

Summary:

Anecdotal rationalization replaces data. Technical barriers are minimized as "reasonable." Narrative control is reasserted through selective defense. The pattern confirms evasion, not analysis. Baseline remains unchanged.

Keep framing gaps as inevitabilities. The gap between technical reality and projected normalization continues to widen.